|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 12/10/2006 : 22:14:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My thoughts are that your grammar with needs some help.
Boy, I guess so!
Yikes...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 22:34:29 [Permalink]
|
Hey, everyone does the "superfluous preposition" at some time or another, I just didn't have anything constructive to offer in response to your post.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 15:13:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Having not reads any of this thread, or forgotten if I have or if I've commented, here's today's thought on the thread title:
Regardless of whatever is being defined here as Buddhism, because I assume there is some claim Buddhism has some rationale basis to it or the thread title would make no sense, I have been to many Buddhist temples and I did not see anything compatible with science there.
Funny thing is. There was no such claim, and this thread doesn't make any sense. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 15:37:02 [Permalink]
|
What about this thought:
What is peculiarly of Buddhism is its disdain for life; so that whereas it had inherited from Hinduism the idea of reincarnation or rebirth, it considers rebirth as a bane instead of a boon.
Is that also the attitude in Hinduism?
I don't know any religion which regards life with the kind of disdain as Buddhism does.
Here is what someone said about Buddhism:
quote:
But Buddhism and Buddhists, they will never contribute anything of substance to mankind's civilization and culture, because theirs is a philosophy and religion of self and human and life extinction; if the animal drive in Buddhists were not so persistently against self-extinction, they should have all committed suicide long ago, also because their leaders would be out of business and a purpose for being if they should draw their philosophy and religious world view of Nirvana to its utter logical end.
Very convenient, that these same teachers should prohibit suicide; otherwise they would be out of any raison d'etre. Some Buddhist sect headmen do advocate death, but on others; for example, the Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese Buddhist religious group -- and you know why those guys didn't start with themselves in their killing spree? Simple because they have to stay to make sure that the whole sentient world or life starting of course with humans will get to the complete irreversible extinction of Nirvana -- best description of Nirvana is that point in the universe's evolution prior to the Big Bang. [Being funny only, but there is truth however grim in humor.]
You see, in other religions the common teaching seems to be that this life for all its toughness is worth living, and the one coming in the end times is going to be perfect.
Perhaps you guys here who know Buddhism better can tell me otherwise, what exactly is the big picture that is peculiarly of Buddhism.
Wait, what about the end destiny of man in Hinduism which is the mother or step-mother or mother-in-law of Buddhism?
It is Moshka instead of Nirvana or Parinirvana. Moshka is the ultimate union of man with the Brahma (read the Hindu name for God), while Nirvana in life and Parnirvana the final lot of man post all rebirths is extinction, as in a candle flame extinguished by a gust of wind.
That I would consider the radical incompatibility between Buddhism and rational or scientific skepticism; because skepticism, that is, the rational or scientific kind, puts life as the supreme value for man, and if we can come back to life again, that should be terrific -- not with Buddhism, it has such a disdain for life and even if it should come back it will be another round of sufferings.
And that is why I can't find any logic in skeptics taking up with Buddhism.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 15:50:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
...because skepticism, that is, the rational or scientific kind, puts life as the supreme value for man...
From what premises and logic does that conclusion arise? What does "the supreme value" even mean? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 18:22:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
And that is why I can't find any logic in skeptics taking up with Buddhism.
Have you found many skeptics "Taking up with" Buddhism?
You may have to define "Taking up with". If it means "adhering to" or "agreeing wholeheartedly with the tenets/philosophies of" then I don't think you'll find many examples. Of course, your definition of Buddhism will also be a factor.
I don't spend much time (in absolute or relative terms) actively combating (metaphorically) therapeutic blood letting, compared with, say homeopathy(1), but saying that I was "taking up" the former is just plain false.
1 Interestingly FireFox's spell checker just tried getting me to change this to "homoeopathy", a spelling which I'd never heard seen before now.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 18:49:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Pachomius:
That I would consider the radical incompatibility between Buddhism and rational or scientific skepticism; because skepticism, that is, the rational or scientific kind, puts life as the supreme value for man, and if we can come back to life again, that should be terrific -- not with Buddhism, it has such a disdain for life and even if it should come back it will be another round of sufferings.
I do think I hit the jackpot being born human. (Although, having not been born anything else, that's a bit of a speculation on my part.) Ultimately though, I think we are germs on the side of a rock spinning in space. The only meaning I can assign to the fact that I live is a personal one. Oh, and the job of procreation to assure the survival of our doomed species. (The same as all other life on earth.) In the total scheme of things, we mean doodley squat. I mean really. When were gone the universe will not care. So much for “supreme value…”
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 19:16:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
Here is what someone said about Buddhism:quote:
But Buddhism and Buddhists, they will never contribute anything of substance to mankind's civilization and culture, because theirs is a philosophy and religion of self and human and life extinction; if the animal drive in Buddhists were not so persistently against self-extinction, they should have all committed suicide long ago, also because their leaders would be out of business and a purpose for being if they should draw their philosophy and religious world view of Nirvana to its utter logical end.
Very convenient, that these same teachers should prohibit suicide; otherwise they would be out of any raison d'etre. Some Buddhist sect headmen do advocate death, but on others; for example, the Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese Buddhist religious group -- and you know why those guys didn't start with themselves in their killing spree? Simple because they have to stay to make sure that the whole sentient world or life starting of course with humans will get to the complete irreversible extinction of Nirvana -- best description of Nirvana is that point in the universe's evolution prior to the Big Bang. [Being funny only, but there is truth however grim in humor.]
Someone said? Good grief, yrreg/Pachomius! You said it yourself over at the randi.org forum. That's a pretty flagrant display of dishonesty. You're a liar.
And again you've alluded to some tendency on the part of skeptics to treat Buddhism with kid gloves, or to take up with Buddhism. You've been asked several times to support your assertion. Now's your chance to put up or shut up. If you think skeptics generally support, take up with, sympathize with, or otherwise cut Buddhism some kind of slack that they don't allow for other religions, prove it. You're on, yrreg/Pachomius. Can you do it, or are you just the gutless lying noise maker that you appear to be?
Edited to add: Here's a link to the whole thread over at the randi.org forum. Pachomius looks like he's turning out to be the same kind of troll here as he's proven himself to be on those other boards. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 12/12/2006 19:33:06 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 19:17:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I don't know any religion which regards life with the kind of disdain as Buddhism does.
What rubbish. Most religions downplay the importance of this life in favor of attaining good standing in the next. Christianity and Islam have far bloodier histories which are in large part due to similar teachings.
quote:
Here is what someone said about Buddhism:
quote:
But Buddhism and Buddhists, they will never contribute anything of substance to mankind's civilization and culture, because theirs is a philosophy and religion of self and human and life extinction; if the animal drive in Buddhists were not so persistently against self-extinction, they should have all committed suicide long ago, also because their leaders would be out of business and a purpose for being if they should draw their philosophy and religious world view of Nirvana to its utter logical end.
Who is this someone? And I don't see how anything written here couldn't apply equally well, if not actually better, to Christianity or Islam. It's not like the idea of martyrdom is a foreign idea to these religions. And I suppose one could be equally cynical about the motivations of the church's pro-life stance. Can't have all the christians offing themselves to try to get to Heaven early, now, can we?
quote:
You see, in other religions the common teaching seems to be that this life for all its toughness is worth living, and the one coming in the end times is going to be perfect.
No, that's not at all what most other religions teach. Historically, Christians viewed life as a sort of test that needed to be suffered through. Adherents were encouraged to deny themselves pleasures of the flesh, to remain celebrate, to eat plain foods, to endure vows of silence, or to scourge their flesh with small instruments of torture. Christianity was all about rejecting this mortal life.
quote:
Perhaps you guys here who know Buddhism better can tell me otherwise, what exactly is the big picture that is peculiarly of Buddhism.
To better oneself.
The rest of your post sort of rambles on and goes nowhere. I don't see how noting that the ultimate aim of Hinduism is to end the cycle of rebirth is any different than other religions' concepts of an eternal afterlife. Both are a relinquishing of the physical realm to live eternally in a spirit world.
quote:
And that is why I can't find any logic in skeptics taking up with Buddhism.
Pachomius
Then you should be equally against all religions, since all of your objections are applicable to most major faiths.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/12/2006 19:19:06 |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 07:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Oh my. The Pachomius/Yrreg roadshow is in town.
There is no "discussing" with Pachomius. He has a bee in his bonnet about Buddhism and has been trolling various boards and testing the mods. He's been banned at a couple I take it (I haven't followed him around, but he has an entire thread at JREF asking people to take up his cause with the mods at a board where he was banned).
I generally don't mind trolls as they spice things up pretty often but Pachomius threads are an invitation to what you have five pages of already: Dumb claims that skeptics either side with or are too soft on Buddhism, refusal to answer that claim with proof, repeated accusations that Buddhists are self-destructive and have disdain for human life, etc... (I don't want to remind him of some of the others, but he'll be trotting out the et ceteras pretty soon, believe me.)
At a given point, he'll start his condescension - one of his favorite tactics. While attacking through same, he puts on a cheery disposition and tells everyone how wonderful his loving family is and that we all need to smile and enjoy. Over at JREF the informal vote is about five people (myself included) are thinking "variation of Asperger Syndrome", and the remainder (who care) just vote "annoying troll". (Any JREFers here - apologies for playing loose with the facts; those are pseudo statistics....)
Hasn't been at JREF since he was suspended for kicking a dead horse in a mod-bashing thread. Pachomius, I don't think you'll get the satisfaction of suicide by mod, here. You'll just have your arguments shredded and proceed to your ultimate demise - everyone will ignore you.
SFN regulars - ignoring is the only way. The lad just doesn't hear what you're saying and will continue in his borderline spamming.
|
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 16:18:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
...because skepticism, that is, the rational or scientific kind, puts life as the supreme value for man...
From what premises and logic does that conclusion arise? What does "the supreme value" even mean?
"From what premises and logic does that conclusion arise? What does "the supreme value" even mean?"
-- asks Dave.
I don't know about you, Dave, but for me and my pet dog and pet cat and everyone at home and everyone I know, they don't need premises and logic to know that the supreme value for us all is life.
If you have to search for premises and use logic to know the supreme value for yourself, then I sympathize with your family.
With all due respect, of course; because you might know things we don't -- from your mastery in the skill of searching for premises and your dexterity with the application of logic.
Pachomius
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 20:22:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I don't know about you, Dave, but for me and my pet dog and pet cat and everyone at home and everyone I know, they don't need premises and logic to know that the supreme value for us all is life.
Well, so much for your pretensions to the application of logical, critical thinking and skepticism. Apparently, it is wholly selective. You demand their application to Buddhism, but refuse to apply them to your own assertions, instead implying that "the supreme value" is simply some sort of self-evident "truth," which might be more appropriately called "dogma."quote:
If you have to search for premises and use logic to know the supreme value for yourself, then I sympathize with your family.
And now you attempt an ad hominem method of escaping from the questions. Bravo, your intent here and methods are transparently revealed for all to see, by you own words. While nescafe's and Master Yoda's warnings are appreciated, no one need look beyond your own words, Pachomius, to see that your positions on these matters are themselves incompatible with rational skepticism. You are self-refuting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2006 : 04:47:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius...
Here is what someone said about Buddhism:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Buddhism and Buddhists, they will never contribute anything of substance to mankind's civilization and culture, because theirs is a philosophy and religion of self and human and life extinction; if the animal drive in Buddhists were not so persistently against self-extinction, they should have all committed suicide long ago, also because their leaders would be out of business and a purpose for being if they should draw their philosophy and religious world view of Nirvana to its utter logical end.
Very convenient, that these same teachers should prohibit suicide; otherwise they would be out of any raison d'etre. Some Buddhist sect headmen do advocate death, but on others; for example, the Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese Buddhist religious group -- and you know why those guys didn't start with themselves in their killing spree? Simple because they have to stay to make sure that the whole sentient world or life starting of course with humans will get to the complete irreversible extinction of Nirvana -- best description of Nirvana is that point in the universe's evolution prior to the Big Bang. [Being funny only, but there is truth however grim in humor.]
For those who might be interested, here is the lowdown on Aum Shinrikyo, the leader of which was, at last report, in the lock-up. quote:
Aum Shinrikyo was a Japanese religious group created by Shoko Asahara. The group gained international notoriety in 1995, when several of its followers carried out a Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subways.
The name "Aum Shinrikyo" (Japanese: #12458;#12454;#12512;#30495;#29702;#25945; #332;mu Shinriky#333;), sometimes written "Aum Shinrikiyo," derives from the Hindu syllable Aum (which represents the universe), followed by the three kanji characters shin ("truth," "reality," "Buddhist sect"), ri ("reason," "justice," "truth"), and ky#333; ("teaching," "faith," "doctrine"). In 2000, the organization changed its name to "Aleph" (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet and Arabic alphabet), changing its logo as well.
In 1995 the group was reported as having 9,000 members in Japan, and as many as 40,000 worldwide. As of 2004, Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph membership is estimated at 1,500 to 2,000 persons.
In brief, they are just another collection of religious whackos such as appear all too often in all faiths. These can no more be used an an example of Buddhism than Jonestown can be called representitive of Christianity.
As Kil mentioned (paraphrasing), death is the ultimate fate of all life. So suck it up and (heh) live with it!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2006 : 06:31:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
What is the sound of one hand dripping?
What is the color of boredom?
Gray, of course. 
Nah, beige.
Oh come ON! EVERYONE knows boredom is GRAY. Relaxation is beige. Please.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2006 : 06:33:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Actually, If you would be so kind (as this is your thread and your are the claimant) to give us an example of any dangerous idea within the central tenents of Buddhism. We have all already agreed that any irrational belief is not compatible with Skepticism. Where we differ is in whether or not philisophical ideas about happiness and inner peace are dangerous or even testable. Certainly, no one rational can believe in the soul or esoteric ideas as such without evidence (which there is none).
Also, I have already pointed out that people make up there own religion and thus a Buddhist (common term) can be anyone who believes anything. So you must clarify what beliefs you specfically are targeting.
The nice thing about Buddhism is you can toss out the supernatural aspect of it (reincarnation, right?) and you still have an intact and functional philosophy for life. I suppose the same can be said for Christianity, at least with respect to many of the specific teachings of Jesus, hence the Jefferson Bible, but IMO it's much more true with Buddhism. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
